In a time when our foundational freedoms are increasingly challenged, staying informed about the latest U.S. Supreme Court rulings isn’t optional—it is essential. These rulings don’t just interpret the Constitution—they shape public policy, influence how future laws are written, and ultimately impact the freedoms we cherish.
From religious liberty to family rights, the Court has made decisions that will help shape the legal landscape for years to come. Cristina Cevallos breaks down what these rulings mean for you and why they matter.
Protecting What Matters Most,
Wendy Wixom, President
United Families International
What the Supreme Court Just Decided—And Why It Matters to Your Family
By Cristina Cevallos
In its recent term, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has delivered a series of important rulings that reinforce fundamental values: faith, family, and federalism. These decisions affirm the rights of parents as primary educators, protect religious ministries from government discrimination, and uphold states’ authority to regulate sensitive issues such as medical procedures for minors and access to explicit online content. Together, they mark a significant reaffirmation of constitutional principles that safeguard individual liberties and respect the proper role of government. Let’s go deeper into some of them:
United States v. Skrmetti
In 2023, Tennessee passed a law that banned surgical and hormonal treatments for minors diagnosed with gender dysphoria. Opponents challenged the law, arguing that it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees that no group is treated unfairly based on characteristics like sex or religion. They backed their argument on the SCOTUS’s 2020 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County which held that, discrimination against an employee because of their sexual orientation or gender identity is a form of sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
However, in a 6-3 decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court upheld the Tennessee law. The justices explained that the law created two neutral categories: one based on age, since those medical treatments were allowed for adults but not for minors, and another based on the purpose of the treatment (hormones may be used for minors in specific medical situations, but not for gender transition). As a result, no one is being treated differently because of their sex. Adults of either sex can still access these treatments, and minors, whether boys or girls, face the same restrictions.
Therefore, since this is not a case of sex-based discrimination, courts should apply “rational basis scrutiny,” a standard that gives states wide authority to regulate as long as there is a reasonable purpose behind the law. The Skrmetti decision makes it clear that laws restricting transgender procedures for minors do not violate the Constitution. This allows states to continue passing legislation aimed at protecting children from irreversible treatments and their potentially harmful consequences. At present, nearly half of U.S. states have enacted similar laws.
Mahmoud v. Taylor
In November 2022, the Montgomery County School Board approved the use of over 22 LGBTQ+–inclusive books in classrooms, including some for children as young as three. One activity asked students to identify images from a word list containing terms like “intersex flag,” “drag queen,” and “underwear,” while another suggested that choosing to transition does not need to “make sense.” Later, the board announced that it would no longer inform parents when these books were used in class, and would not allow them to opt their children out of instruction. In response, a group of parents from various religious backgrounds filed a lawsuit.
Accordingly, the SCOTUS affirmed that public schools must provide notice and allow parents to opt their children out of lessons that promote a particular viewpoint on same-sex marriage and gender, especially when those lessons portray opposing religious beliefs as hateful. Writing for the majority, Justice Alito stated, “Today’s decision recognizes that the right of parents to direct the religious upbringing of their children would be an empty promise if it did not follow those children into the public school classroom.” He added that, “The refusal to allow parents to opt their children out of these lessons substantially interferes with the religious development of their children.” In short, the Court correctly reaffirmed the free exercise of religion and the rights of parents as the primary educators of their children.
Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton
A Texan law was passed requiring pornographic websites to verify users’ ages, with methods such as government-issued IDs or third-party verification systems, before granting access. This measure was implemented to protect minors from the dangers they may encounter on the internet. However, the law was challenged for allegedly violating free speech rights.
In a 6–3 decision, the SCOTUS upheld the Texas law, describing such measures as “plainly legitimate.” The justices explained that laws like this one are subject to intermediate scrutiny, meaning they must serve an important government interest (such as protecting minors) and must not restrict more speech than necessary to achieve that goal. Thus, adults have no First Amendment right to bypass age verification in these cases.
The ruling empowers states to protect children from sexually explicit online content and may also pave the way for regulating minors’ access to social media under intermediate scrutiny, a less stringent standard than others. As of now, 21 states have similar laws. The trend began in 2023 with Louisiana’s age-verification law, which led to an 80% drop in Pornhub traffic. Since then, while some sites have complied, others have shut down in some territories.
Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission
Under Wisconsin law, certain nonprofit organizations (including religious ones) may opt out of the state’s unemployment compensation program. Catholic Charities requested this exemption in order to join the Wisconsin Bishops’ Church Unemployment Pay Program, which offers the same level of benefits as the state program but operates more efficiently.
In 2024, however, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that Catholic Charities could not receive a religious exemption. The Court concluded that the organization’s work, including its service to the poor and needy, did not qualify as religious activity because it was not “typical” religious activity and did not involve proselytism.
Nevertheless, the SCOTUS unanimously ruled that Wisconsin could not discriminate against Catholic Charities. By attempting to define how religious Catholic Charities and its affiliated ministries operate, the Wisconsin court overstepped and entered into deeply religious questions for which they hold no authority.
This decision reaffirms that the government may not favor one form of religious expression over another. In this case, a Catholic ministry cannot be required to pay unemployment taxes while other religious groups are exempt. It also upholds the right of all religious ministries to serve the poor and vulnerable in accordance with their faith.
Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic
Medicaid provides funds intended to help low-income individuals access essential medical care. South Carolina determined that Planned Parenthood did not qualify to receive taxpayer funding under this program because it did not offer holistic care. As a result, the state redirected those funds to other health care providers that offer a broader range of services, including full prenatal care, high-risk pregnancy care, and mammograms. Nonetheless, a federal district court ordered the state to reinstate funding for Planned Parenthood.
However, the SCOTUS affirmed that states have the authority to decide which health care providers qualify for Medicaid funding, without being sued in federal court. As the Court explained, “Congress didn’t intend to allow Medicaid recipients to drag states into federal court to challenge those decisions, nor did Congress intend for federal courts to second-guess states’ decisions about which providers are qualified to receive Medicaid funding.” Forcing states to defend these decisions in court diverts resources away from essential social services and toward costly litigation.
In other words, the state may direct Medicaid funding toward providers that offer comprehensive health care, rather than to entities whose primary focus is performing abortions. Still, Planned Parenthood continues to receive over half a billion dollars each year from taxpayers through service reimbursements and government grants, totaling $3.2 billion between 2018 and 2023. Other states should follow South Carolina’s example and end Medicaid contracts with Planned Parenthood.
Conclusion
We all should express gratitude for so many positive rulings for family and freedom, but recognize these battles are far from over. Public policy decisions and new laws are being created and implemented all around us. We each have the power to influence through not only voting, but becoming aware and then showing up to express our opinions in forums and venues available to us. Complacency is not an option. In the meantime, we will acknowledge the efforts of the Supreme Court Justices and all policy makers who share our values. June was a good month for faith, family, and federalism!
Cristina Cevallos is a Peruvian lawyer with a master’s degree in Human Rights. She combines political experience with her work as a writer and researcher, focusing on bioethics, family, religious freedom, and cultural heritage.